Fiddling While Rome Burned

Country Parson

It is said that Nero fiddled while Rome burned. It is, of course, a myth.But, as with many myths, it reveals a deeper truth.A great fire swept through Rome in 64 CE, destroying much of the city. Nero was away enjoying himself when it began, which probably explains why later generations accused him of “fiddling while Rome burned” as the citizens of Rome suffered enormous loss of life and property.

What was he to do?

He did what many corrupt leaders do. He blamed a vulnerable minority for the disaster and punished them with extraordinary cruelty. It was classic scapegoating, a tactic used by rulers throughout history to divert attention from their own failures and avoid accountability.

And whom did Nero choose? Christians.

It was the first major imperial persecution of Christians in Rome and almost certainly contributed to the executions of Peter and Paul around 64 or 65 CE.

The emperor Nero came to mind as I reflected on Mr. Trump’s preoccupation with helipads, reflecting pools, golden statues of himself, triumphal arches, lavish ballrooms, and other monuments to personal grandeur while the nation struggles with wildfires, economic uncertainty, and the consequences of incompetent policies at home and abroad.

Mr. Trump is certainly not another Nero. Nero became emperor at only sixteen years of age and died in 68 CE before reaching thirty-one. By the end of his reign he appears to have become mentally unstable, something that had become obvious even to Rome’s political leadership.

Trump is an old man. If he is unstable, it is in a different way. He has remained capable of making calculated decisions designed to manipulate government to his own advantage, influence elections, expand executive power, and enrich himself and his family.

The time will come when Trump is gone, just as Nero eventually disappeared from Rome. The greater question is what follows.

After Nero’s death, Rome descended into the chaotic Year of the Four Emperors. None of the claimants to power provided lasting stability until Vespasian finally restored order and established the Flavian dynasty.

That is not a future Americans should want for themselves. We do not want political chaos to follow the Trump era, nor do we want one would-be supreme leader to succeed another. What we should seek is the restoration of our constitutional republic and its democratic institutions.

We have not lost them yet, but we have come dangerously close.

I find it difficult to understand how nearly thirty percent of American adults continue to approve of Trump’s administration. No administration in our history has displayed such public corruption and incompetence so openly or so consistently. Much of it has taken place in plain sight.

That so many remain loyal to him—or at least willing to tolerate him—is a sad commentary on the condition of our nation.

The Trump era also brings to mind another ruler: Charles I of England. He claimed a divine right to rule without meaningful regard for Parliament or the will of the people. That provided Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans with the opportunity to wage civil war, execute the king, and impose a decade of authoritarian rule under strict Puritan discipline.

There is today an element within right-wing evangelical Christian nationalism that views Trump as a useful vehicle for imposing its own religious vision upon an unwilling nation.

It did not take long for the English people to tire of Puritan rule. The monarchy was restored in 1660 under Charles II. Yet the deeper constitutional struggle continued, culminating after the reign of James II in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. William and Mary accepted the throne under new constitutional limits that made the monarchy subject to Parliament rather than above it.

That is the enduring lesson of English constitutional history: no ruler stands above the law.

The next president and the next Congress must understand that the American people will no longer tolerate any claim of a presidential right to rule unchecked. Nor should we tolerate a Congress that willingly surrenders its constitutional responsibilities to the executive branch.

The Supreme Court likewise must recommit itself to its constitutional role—not as an instrument of ideology, but as an independent interpreter of the Constitution in light of the nation’s laws and the realities of the twenty-first century.

This November’s midterm elections will, I hope, send a clear message to our elected leaders and to the judiciary: Americans have had enough. Our republic depends not on powerful individuals but on institutions worthy of the public’s trust. Those institutions must once again be strengthened, respected, and held accountable.